Kolkata Court August 1941 Judgments
Sk. Budhan Mia Vs. Jotindra Mohun Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal132
Biswas, J.1. This case arises out of an application made by a judgment-debtor under Clause (a)(ii) of Section 36(6), Bengal Money-lenders Act, in respect of a preliminary mortgage-decree. The petitioner before us is not the original borrower, but a purchaser from him of the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property, and it is sufficient to state that on the authority of the decision in Sailendra Nath v. Amarendra Nath : AIR1941Cal484 , he will be deemed to be a 'borrower' within the meaning of the Act as defined in Section 2(22). The loan here was for a sum of Rs. 9000 which one Rahim Bux had borrowed from the opposite party on mortgage, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum. On 6th September 1938, the opposite party instituted a suit to enforce the mortgage, making the petitioner as well as Rahim Bux party defendant, and on 30th March 1940, he recovered against them both a preliminary mortgage decree for a total sum of Rupees 19,951-15-0, which included a...
Tag this Judgment!Ayub Ali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal277
Lodge, J.1. The seven appellants before us and one Monomohan De alias Munna were placed on their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Tippera on a number of charges. They were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and a common jury. The jury returned a majority verdict in respect of all the accused on all the charges framed. The verdict of the majority, namely, three of the jury was as follows:Appellants Ayub Ali, Kader Ali and Nur Mian were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 365 and 366, Penal Code.Appellants Nur Bux Gazi, Julmat Dhali, Abdul Rahman and Sujat Ali were guilty of offences punishable under Sections 147,341, 365/109 and 366/109, Penal Code.The non-appealing accused Monomohan alias Munna was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 365/109 and 366/109, Penal Code.2. The learned Judge accepted the majority verdict of the jury and he sentenced Ayub Ali under Section 366, Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal593
Pal, J.1. These two rules were issued by this Court on the petition of the two accused persons calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur to show cause 'why the order of conviction and sentence complained of in the petition should not be set aside or such other or further orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.' The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 595 of 1941 is Naresh Das who has been convicted under Section 9(c), Opium Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner in. Criminal Revision No. 646 of 1941 is Sundar Singh who has been convicted under Section 9 (a), Opium Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The prosecution case is that on 5th September last at about 10.30 p. m. the officer-in-charge of Tinsukia Police Station B.B. Dam, happened to be on patrol duty at Bansbari on his way back from Panitola. He saw taxi cab No. A.S.L. 168 proceeding towards Tinsukia from the direction of Dibrugarh. A...
Tag this Judgment!Aniruddha Mitra Vs. Official Receiver, Alipur Judge's Court and Ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal241
B.K. Mukherjea, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the District Judge, 24 Par ganas dated 4th July 1939 passed in exercise of insolvency jurisdiction, in a proceeding under Sections 4 and 53, Provincial Insolvency Act. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : Rai Behari Lal Mitter Bahadur, the father of the appellant, was a wealthy resident of this city, and he died on 7th February 1933 leaving behind him a will which was executed on 5th July 1932. Under this will, the appellant Aniruddha, who was the only son of the testator, was given nothing else, but an allowance of Rs. 700 per month for his maintenance during the period of his natural life. Similar allowances were given to the wife and daughter-in-law of the testator, and after giving a large annuity to the University of Calcutta, the will directed that the residue of the estate was to go to the son or sons of Aniruddha, either natural born or adopted when they would arrive a...
Tag this Judgment!Navajiban Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Insurance, Governme ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal294
B.K. Mukherjea, J. 1. This rule is directed against an order of the District Judge of Jalpaiguri dated 5th April 1941, rejecting an application of the petitioner for refund of deposit under Section 9, Insurance Act. The petitioner company carries on, at present, the business of life insurance. Before this, it had been doing in addition to that business in miscellaneous insurance under which policies were issued under table M of the company. This miscellaneous business was based upon the 'dividing principle' and under Section 52, Insurance Act, it had to be stopped within the period of three years from the date of the commencement of the Act. The petitioner discontinued this business from November 1940. Under Section 7 (1)(e), Insurance Act, the total amount that has got to be deposited by the insurer who carries on a combined business of this sort is three lacs of rupees out of which two lacs of rupees are regarded as the deposit for the life insurance business alone. Under Sub-section...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Nath Dutt Vs. Debendra Nath Ash and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal370
ORDERSen, J.1. The only point for determination in this application is whether the protection given to assignees by Sub-section (5) of Section 36, Bengal Money-lenders Act, extends to an assignee who took his assignment before the Act. On 26th August 1935, Debendra Nath Ash borrowed the sum of Rs. 15,501 from Srimati Kumudmoni Dassi and deposited the title deeds of certain property belonging to him with her as security for the loan. The loan carried interest at 10 per cent. Kumudmoni assigned her rights under this mortgage to Bhupendra Nath Dutt for consideration on 11th April 1938. Bhupendra Nath Dutt instituted a suit against Debendra and obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on 21st March 1940. He now applies for a final decree. Debendra Nath Ash has applied under Section 36, Bengal Moneylenders Act, for relief on the ground that the interest payable on the mortgage is above the maximum allowed by Section 30 of the aforesaid Act. Both applications have been heard together. The plai...
Tag this Judgment!Balchand Prohit Vs. Sir Bejoychand Mahtab Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal606
R.C. Mitter, J.1. These two appeals are on behalf of the defendant in a suit for ejectment. It is not necessary for us to enter into the merits of the appeals because of a preliminary point raised by the respondent's Advocate Mr. Mitra, which preliminary point we consider to be a sound one. The judgment in the second miscellaneous appeals to this Court was delivered by S.K. Ghose J. on 23rd June 1937. The memoranda of appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent were actually lodged in this Court on 17th February, 1938. Prima facie the appeals are barred by time. The last date for preferring the appeals expired on 23rd July 1937. It appears that when S.K. Ghose J. delivered his judgment there was no prayer made to him for leave to file appeals under the Letters Patent. An application for review of judgment was filed on 2nd November 1937. It was summarily rejected. Later on in the beginning of the year 1938, an application was put in by the appellant in person praying for leave t...
Tag this Judgment!Debendra Nath Biswas and anr. Vs. Umesh Chandra Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal513
Biswas, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of khas possession on declaration of the plaintiffs' title, and is on behalf of the defendants. Both the Courts below decreed the suit. The plaintiffs are admittedly one out of four groups of cosharers who jointly owned a tenure bearing a jama of Rs. 28-4-0 per year. In the settlement records the tenure appears to have been recorded in four different khatians in the names of the four different groups, and a particular Dag No. 2371, being the dag with which we are concerned in this appeal, was shown as appertaining to the share of a group other than the plaintiffs. This dag represented a raiyati jama of 8 annas held by two persons named Pratap Chandra Ray and Pramatha Nath Ray. The plaintiffs' case is that after the publication of the record of rights there was a partition suit amongst the plaintiffs and their cosharers, and in that suit a decree was made which apparently disturbed the previous arrangement regarding separate pos...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Bhattacharjee Vs. Pancha Muchi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal229
Biswas, J.1. This is a reference under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C, made by the Munsif of Bongaon in the district of Jessore in a suit which was filed in his Court on 21st April 1941 by one Sitaram Bhattacharyya against Panchu Muchi for recovery of a share of the produce of some agricultural land which the defendant held under the plaintiff under what is known as the barga system. The claim was in respect of two years 1346 and 1347 B.S., that is to say, from the middle of April 1939 to the middle of April 1941, and there was a prayer in the alter-native for recovery of the price of the crops at the current market rates. The suit was duly registered by the learned Munsif as a Small Cause Court suit. It appears that the defendant thereafter approached a Debt Settlement Board at Khalishpore, and on 7th May 1941 the learned Munsif received a notice from that Board under Section 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935, with the result that the proceedings in the suit were stayed. On 9th J...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Rai Ashutosh Ghose Bahadur and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Cal367
ORDERSen, J.1. The point which arises for decision in this application is whether the interest awarded to the mortgagee by the preliminary decree in this suit on the principal sum found due for the period between the date of the preliminary decree and the date fixed therein for payment is interest within the meaning of Section 2(8), Bengal Money-lenders Act, The matter arises in this way. The petitioners borrowed money on a mortgage, the interest fixed in the bond being 7 per cent, per annum with quarterly rests reducible to 6J per cent, per annum with quarterly rests if the dues were regularly paid. The dues were not regularly paid and the mortgagee instituted a suit. The preliminary decree was passed on 9th February 1939 and the final decree on 29th January 1940. The sale pursuant to the final decree has been made absolute and on 22nd April 1941 the sheriff was directed to make over possession to the plaintiffs. The amount of interest Sue on the bond calculated up to the date of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »